I love books and value broad reading and diversity in education. My interest in books and in education motivated me to take advantage of an opportunity to preview several proposed textbooks for the Appleton school district. Though I was pleased with the literature selections, I was greatly troubled by the obvious bias and bigotry I encountered in two proposed books for social studies programs. The bias was in areas of party politics (pro-liberal, anti-conservative), religion (Christian influence and especially conservative Christians are belittled and attacked), abortion (only pro-abortion viewpoints are presented) and sexuality. I quickly jotted down a number of examples which I later fashioned into a 7-page document that I gave to the School Board with my first letter.

I appeared at a Board meeting and presented my concerns. The Board and the social studies textbook advocates had been planning to put in the order for the books the next day, but the Board agreed to wait a month to provide time for review.

During that time, the proponents of the biased books prepared a "rebuttal." In response to the disappointing nature of that rebuttal - a rebuttal that completely missed the point, I prepared a second letter and expanded my documentation of the bias, trying to explain the problems clearly enough so that nearly anyone should (in theory) be able to sense that bias is present. The only question left to answer is whether that level of bias is acceptable. I'm still surprised that the advocates of the texts cannot acknowledge that some bias exists.

My wife attended the next Board meeting and presented our concerns again. Each board member had received a copy of the expanded documentation and our second letter. The Board, in a closed meeting, had already decided to table the textbook issue until a committee could be appointed to gain further input and make a recommendation. I am glad the Board agreed to do this instead of simply going ahead with the proposed texts. I hope honest people will be selected for the committee, for I feel that any honest person - regardless of personal views - should be able to see that the proposed texts offer an unacceptable level of ideological bias.

The funny thing about this is that our objection to two textbooks was front page news in the local paper, the Post-Crescent, which is the top-rated paper in the state of Wisconsin. In fact, it was the lead story on the front page of July 11, 1995, with a color picture of my wife speaking to the Board. How on earth is this front page news? (I almost wonder if somebody is paranoid about the influence of Christians on education: stop the press - Christians are trying to take over our schools!)

In multiple instances, this textbook denigrates conservative Christians.
I will present several examples, none of which are adequately balanced
elsewhere in the text. There are several neutral statements about religion in
general and an acknowledgement that many people practice it - and even a photo of food gathered by Baptists for charity, but several neutral statements and the photo of food do not compensate for the offenses that I detail below. While several pages in the text are devoted to sensitizing
students to the problems of discrimination against homosexuals, women, and
racial minorities, religious discrimination is not given such attention.
Indeed, the authors are guilty of religious bigotry on several counts:

One of the most distressing examples of bigotry - undeniable bigotry - is on
page 400, where students read that conservative Christians in America fear the
teaching of democracy, civil liberties, world peace, social equity, and
compassionate concern for other humans. In contrast, secular humanists are said
to adhere to those positive virtues. This passage is bigoted and manipulative
to the utmost. The offending text is given special emphasis, being
highlighted with a color background and given a title in bold, "Secular
Humanism as a Way of Life. " It is not offered as an editorial or as one
person's opinion, but is presented as if it were factual and significant. Here
is the passage:

Secular humanism "reflects the Enlightenment's emphasis on rationality,
science, and personal effort rather than blind faith in supernatural powers.

"Among the tenets of humanist philosophy:

1. A faith in human intelligence and abilities.

2. A commitment to democracy and civil liberties.

3. A belief in the importance of, if not the divine origin, of the Ten
Commandments and of the ideals of social equity, the community of humankind,
and world peace.

4. Opposition to all theories of predestination, divine determination, and
fatalism.

5. Compassionate concern for all human beings."

"These are the beliefs that conservative Christians in the United States fear being taught to their children." (Sociology, p. 400)

Do we really want to spend tax dollars to teach our children that conservative Christians fear the doctrines of democracy, civil liberty, peace, and compassion? Can anybody doubt that the above text is dishonest and
manipulative?

What follows is simply more of the same:

"These are the beliefs that conservative Christians in the United States fear being taught to their children. So vigorous is their opposition that Congress
passed a clause in the Education Act of 1985 that prohibits federal magnet
school money from being used for 'any course of instruction the substance of
which is secular humanism.' At the same time, by claiming that secular humanism
is the belief system that dominates public schooling, some parents have sued
local school districts for equal time for the Christian viewpoint.

"In any event, the few thousand members of the American Humanist Association
continue to hope that their opponents will eventually be guided by reason
rather than fear."(Sociology, p. 400)

The additional sentences offer no balance, but portray the Christian opponents
of humanism (i.e, the fearful opponents of democracy, compassion, etc.) as
extremists with political and legal clout. That is an opinion that does not belong as a statement of fact in a textbook.

"[I]ssues related to ideas about women and about sexuality in general... is
where the split between liberal and conservative elements becomes most obvious,
with the liberals supporting equality for women in all areas of social life, as
well as acceptance of homosexuals and recognition of loving unions outside of
marriage. In contrast, conservatives approve of sexual relations only among
heterosexuals in legal marriage, and support norms of male dominance."

I see this as a biased way of saying that many Christians adhere to the
traditional family concept and its value system. Many conservative Christian
women in traditional families would be offended to be told that they advocate
"male dominance." Biblical teachings speak of husband and wife as being
joint-heirs in Christ, heirs together of eternal life, forming a partnership in
unity rather than a master/slave relationship. Of course, many Christians have
not reached this ideal, but the wording of the text is still unfairly biased
against conservative Christians. The contributions of Christian organizations
in advancing women's suffrage is ignored. The many positive contributions of
Christianity to the welfare of women are ignored.

On page 407, the Catholic Church is described as "often accused of being
actively hostile to women and to sexuality." There is no balance to this biased
passage - no examples of how the Catholic Church benefits women and no mention
that numerous women find fulfillment and joy as Catholics or as any other kind
of Christian.

An article in the textbook by Mary Jo Neitz on modern witches (pages 406-407)
says that the Catholic Church (Catholic charismatics in particular) and other
churches "subordinate women to men" with "repressive social norms" that,
according to social theory, "were necessary to control effervescent
(enthusiastic) religious activity" among women. This passage again reflects a
bias that is not countered elsewhere in the text. If Christian churches truly
are repressive to women, why do we not find women as a minority in church
membership? Again, many Christian women would be offended to be told that they
are repressed by their religion. My experience has been that women tend to be
more active in their Christian churches and more represented in church
membership than men. I have heard many testify that they have found meaning,
joy, and even liberation in their religious life as Christians. Though they may
not be ordained as priests, many women play significant roles in their churches
and are able to channel religious organizations towards outstanding social
causes and humane service. Mother Theresa is an example of a woman whose
influence for good has been global, yet she is a member of a church said to be
repressive to women. Examples such as hers are ignored, leaving the student
with only one view, the view that conservative Christianity and Catholicism
repress women and limit their spiritual growth. Again, where is diversity of
viewpoints?

Page 408 discusses the activism of the more liberal clergy in the 1960s on
behalf of civil rights and the antiwar movement. The text states that many
church members were unhappy with the departure of their ministers for social
activism. The ministers were therefore placed in a dilemma:

"Forced to choose between commitment to the goals of justice and peace and
their responsibility to their congregations, most clergy redefined their
mission as one of serving local needs. Thus the prophetic inspiration of the
1960s gave way to an emphasis on priestly functions. For those clergy still
dedicated to social activism and 'liberal' causes, the 1980s brought new, less
controversial crusades: saving the environment; avoiding nuclear war; reducing
world starvation; ending racial segregation in South Africa; and encouraging
corporations to be more ethical.

"However, the more conservative denominations also have their causes: against
abortion, pornography, and homosexual rights, among others." (Sociology, p.
408)

The "liberal" values of peace and justice and the "liberal" desire to save the
environment, reduce world starvation, and avoid nuclear war is contrasted with
the negative causes of conservative Christians: against abortion rights,
against homosexual rights, and against pornography (I credit the
authors for not saying "against First amendment rights"). This passage reflects
bias at several levels. First, liberal religious values are defined as positive
and obviously desirable, while conservative religious views are listed
negatively. The bias becomes more evident when the textbook as a whole is considered, for the pro-abortion perspective is presented as the only reasonable viewpoint (evidence presented below) and homosexuality is likewise
presented positively, with opponents of homosexuality described negatively as
homophobic (p. 160).

Further, the style of contrasting liberal to conservative values suggests that
conservative Christians do not wish to save the environment, avoid nuclear war,
or reduce world starvation. This is patently untrue. Finally, the text omits
the significant contributions of conservative Christians in fighting global
hunger through significant sacrifice of money, time, and other resources; it
omits the open opposition of conservative Christians to nuclear war; it omits
the widespread conservative Christian advocacy of peace, justice, equity, and
ethics; it also omits the energetic projects launched by many conservative
religious groups to beautify and clean local communities (directly working to
save the environment), etc. Many omissions were necessary to create this
negative picture of conservative Christians in contrast to wholly positive
liberals. Participation of liberal clergy in positive causes is cited in
multiple instances; not so the conservative clergy. Again, can we really claim
that this textbook provides a balanced treatment of Christians, when
conservative Christians are denigrated and their contributions ignored?

Also of significance in the above citation from page 408 is the that the
liberal causes of the 1960s are praised for their "prophetic inspiration."
Naturally, no inspiration is ascribed to conservative causes.

On the most abused buzzwords in modern rhetoric is "fundamentalism." There may
be some Christian groups which call themselves fundamentalists, but in my
experience, these represent a minority of conservative Christians. In my
opinion, it seems that some of their ideological opponents label conservative
Christians as "fundamentalists" whenever the Christians speak out on social
issues or become involved in the political process. (Sooner or later, I expect
that someone will label me as a fundamentalist for objecting to bias in the
sociology textbook.) Pages 408-410 offer a classic example of this type of
mislabeling. Conservative Christians who are politically active or outspoken -
members of the so-called "New Christian Right" - are labeled as
fundamentalists.

Regardless of who is or is not a fundamentalist, the text shows bias on page
409 in hypothesizing that the rise of Protestant fundamentalism is due to
anxiety in people who believe they are losing control of their life. "Such
status anxiety is easily transformed into moral outrage that is at the heart of
fundamentalist doctrine." Here we have another blatant example of bigotry.
Moral outrage - anger - is said to be the foundation of fundamentalism! (I'm
not sure I know any real fundamentalists, but I'm sure they'd be pretty
outraged to read this! Actually, I may know many fundamentalists, for the text
links conservative Christians in general to fundamentalists, and I know a lot
of conservative Christians.) Is this statement on page 409 balanced by other
passages in the text? I find no such balance. Does it reflect diversity or
sensitivity to the views of others?

Page 409 discusses theories for the "revival of Protestant fundamentalism." The
first theory is that these Christians are "people who believe that they are
losing control over their way of life." This is termed "status anxiety."
Further,

"Explaining social movements in terms of individual feelings of
alienation or loss of certainty is, however, not completely satisfying to
sociologists....What might account for the reawakening of fundamentalism in the
1980s? One answer is that fundamentalist leaders took advantage of public
distress over the manifest failures of modernism."

(Here Christian leaders are
unfairly portrayed as manipulative, taking advantage of public distress.) A lengthy listing of social and civic problems follows, with the claim that "fundamentalists" could trace all these events to a single cause, the spread of "secular humanism." "The only aspect of life not out of control was faith in
the old-time religion." Given that secular humanism has already been defined as
a system of extremely positive values that conservative Christians fear, the
present passage argues that "fundamentalists" are paranoid, blaming all ills
on the bogeyman of humanism, and reacting out of anxiety over their loss of
control in life.

There is no room provided for the possibility that Christian influence is
growing because people are sincerely accepting Christ or being drawn to drawn
to the advantages religion offers. Rather, the growth of evangelical and other
forms of Christianity - incorrectly grouped under the buzzword of
"fundamentalism" - is said to be due to fear, anxiety, and religious leaders
who take advantage of modern problems.

Some may still miss the bias in these passages. For further clarification,
consider your reaction to a passage claiming that the influence of liberal
groups in America was not due to a sincere belief in liberal ideals, but to
"status anxiety" and fear that was exploited by leaders of liberal causes. What
if a passage said that liberals traced all problems in America to the Reagan
Administration, when a prior section had described Reagan as a benign hero who
wanted peace and justice, values that were feared by his liberal opponents?
Would you not agree that such text would be bigoted and inappropriate for a
textbook in public schools?

A section beginning on page 409 focuses on the increasing political influence
of conservative Christians. They are said to have joined with extremist
political groups - "organizations that had previously been considered 'too
extremist' to have much effect on public policy." These combined forces are
termed the New Christian Right (NCR), which is said to have become powerful not
through "any great change in people's religious or political beliefs," but
through "resource mobilization" and the clever use of mailing lists, media
know-how, and money.

This section presents the authors opinions - arguably a "sour grapes" view of
the electoral victories of conservatives. I have heard conservatives argue that
the election of Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter was not reflective of people's
actual viewpoints, but was just due to media bias. That is an opinion which
would be inappropriate in a textbook, as are the opinions on page 409.

Page 409 offers a patently biased opinion in stating that the the "line between
Church and State had been blurred" by the 1980 election, which gave the NCR
legitimacy. This implies that it is a threat to the Constitution when
candidates supported by Christians are elected! Christians, conservative or
not, should have the same right to participate in the political process as
anyone else. (Must we impose a religious test to ensure that only secularists
are allowed to vote?) The attitude of the authors again reflects their bias
against conservative Christians.

Continuing with the text, we find the bigotry escalates rapidly:

"Once the link between Church and State had been blurred, NCR leaders were
quick to define the 'Christian' position on a range of issues, not all of
which appear directly religious, including women's and gay rights (against),
nuclear power (for), sex education (against), defense spending (for),
antipoverty programs (against)..." (Sociology, p. 409)

This neat list is simply bigoted. What if it said, "Liberals have views on
issues such as the killing of unborn children (for), religious tolerance
(against), the Constitutional right to self-defense (against), the raising of
taxes (for), sex without responsibility (for), the growth of big government
(for)..." These issues are complex - resolving them to a simple "for" or
"against" can be used to distort anybody's views. The conservative Christian
view has been grossly distorted in a bigoted way.

Let me further reveal the bias by indicating what typical conservative
Christians do support and oppose, based on my limited perspective (other
Christians may disagree with some of the following statements). Typical
conservative Christians are not against sex education, but oppose teaching of
sex without a clear moral foundation. They support what they feel are
fundamental and legitimate rights for all people, but do not see abortion for
convenience as a right, while human life has sacred status. Homosexuals are not
feared (contrary to statements on page 160) and their human rights are not
opposed, but they do not feel that society must legitimize what they feel to be
a destructive perversion; gays as fellow humans need to be loved and helped,
but the practice of homosexuality should not be condoned. Conservative
Christians seek to alleviate poverty, but some see governmental redistribution
of wealth as an exacerbation of the problem (through the creation of
destructive dependency and the natural potential for corruption) rather than a
solution. It is unfair to say that they are categorically opposed to
antipoverty programs, but they may be opposed to the existing federal programs
due to their manifest failure.

In multiple instances, Christians and especially conservative Christians are
described in negative terms: fearful opponents of democracy, afraid of having
peace and compassion taught to their children, supporting repression of women
and norms of male dominance, suffering from status anxiety and paranoid about
the benign bogeyman of "secular humanism," homophobic, opposed to many positive
values, with leaders who take advantage of social problems. They are contrasted
to liberals and humanists, who are said to support equality, justice, equity,
peace, the avoidance of nuclear war, the reduction of poverty, and the
elimination of starvation - as if Christians do not actively work for any of
these lofty goals.

The textbook does not attack religion per se. Indeed, the views and causes of
liberal clergy are described positively - indeed, the liberal causes of the
1960s are said to have been charged with "prophetic inspiration." Furthermore,
the religion of modern witches is described in positive terms (pages 406-407)
and contrasted to the repression of women by conservative Christians such as
Catholic charismatics. The rise of the "New Christian Right" and fundamentalism
(a term used with bias) is described negatively, without balance and without a
consideration of others views.

Although several pages are used to make students aware of the feminist
perspective, the homosexual perspective, and the belief systems of modern
witches - all in contrast to their ideological opponents, conservative
Christians - I find no attempt to provide insight into the Christian experience
or the perspective of religious conservatives. If Christians and conservatives
represented a negligible minority in America, this lack of balance might be
forgiven. Yet the text itself points out that many people subscribe to such
views and bemoans their increasing influence. No avenue is provided for
students to understand the conservative or Christian world view. Students are
sensitized to discrimination of many forms, but not to religious discrimination
or anti-Christian bigotry.

Proponents of the text have argued that it provides fairness, balance and a
diversity of viewpoints. The highly divisive issue of abortion is another clear
example of just the opposite. Only one viewpoint is portrayed, and the
treatment of the topic does not even come close to being objective, fair,
balanced, or diverse.

For example, page 157 offers another highlighted section entitled "When Urban
Adolescents Choose Abortion." This section addresses the social and
psychological effects of abortion, drawing upon one study of Zabin et al. for its "fascinating answers." This study examined three classes of
African-American teenage women: those who had abortions, those who were
pregnant and bore the child, and those who were not pregnant. Of the three
groups, those who had abortions ended up being better of economically,
suffered no additional emotional distress, and learned to become better users
of contraception. The consequences of abortion are presented as positive, while
elsewhere on page 157, the consequences of early child bearing are described as
largely negative (which is certainly true for the mother), making the decision
to have an abortion seem to be entirely logical. There is absolutely no
discussion of adoption as a reasonable alternative (adoption was not even
considered in the Zabin study). There is no reference to reasons why many
people find abortion morally repugnant. There is no reference to numerous other
studies which indicate adverse consequences of abortion (increased risk of
sterility or subsequent miscarriage, for example, or the controversial issue of
post-abortion stress syndrome). There is no indication that abortion causes the
death of a human or even a potential human being. ONLY ONE SIDE OF THIS
DIVISIVE ISSUE IS PRESENTED. Diversity of views? Balance? Absolutely not.

At the end of page 157 is a highlighted header, "Social Policy Issue: Abortion
- Whose Body? Whose Baby?" This begins a new section loaded with bias,
presenting abortion in terms of who will control women's bodies - themselves,
or the state? Even Roe v. Wade is implicitly criticized on page 158 as being
too restrictive, allowing the "interest of the state" to "supersede the wishes
of the mother" by limiting third trimester abortions. "The sociological
importance of this decision lies in making the abortion issue a medical one,
thus denying women an absolute right to reproductive choice."

The authors are using the phraseology of the abortion-on-demand lobby, speaking
only of choice and avoiding any hint that there are other rational views
concerning the sanctity of life or the humanity of the unborn. Again, only one
side - arguably, an extreme side - is presented. Fairness? Balance?
Diversity?

Finally, the authors on page 158 discuss some of the political threats to
abortion rights. "In addition, pro-life forces have successfully pressured
physicians and hospitals, so that large numbers of them will no longer perform
abortions...even though the health risks of giving birth are very much higher
than for legal abortion, particularly for teenagers." The insertion of the
phrase "even though ..." again reveals the bias of the authors. There is no
suggestion that there are rational and moral reasons why doctors might not wish
to perform abortions, nor is reference made to the ancient Hippocratic oath
which forbids doctors to perform abortions. The pro-life movement is simply
presented as a threat to the health of women, without balance.

The presence of bias becomes truly unmistakable on page 159. The facade of
objective scholarship is dropped as youth are urged to vote for pro-choice
politicians, again couching the debate in unfair terms to manipulate the
child's response:

"Over the next several years you will be asked to vote for politicians who
will determine the availability of abortions in your local community and state.
You will have to decide who has choice and who does not. And whether or not the
unborn has rights independent of the women in whose womb it resides. Is the
fetus entitled to medical treatment even against the wishes of the mother and
at some risk to her health? Can there really be two persons in one body? Who
will decide - individual women or the state? This is the crux of a fierce
ideological struggle over control of reproductive choice in contemporary
America."

The abortion issue is presented to the prospective voter solely in terms
preferred by the pro-abortion movement: choice, availability, control of one's
own body, protection of the mother, individual rights versus state control. The
rhetorical question, "Can there really be two persons in one body?" is clearly
intended to prejudice the reader to the view that the unborn baby is not a
person, not a human at all, and does not have a separate body. Such language is
not only medically misleading (the baby has a separate body, with its own
circulatory system, its own brain, its own nervous system, its own immune
system, etc.) but is manipulative and reflective of extreme bias. The authors
clearly wish that students will vote for pro-choice politicians. No other
viewpoints are presented.

The context, which I am accused of ignoring, is one of pro-abortion bias and
even propaganda, as I have shown above. The context makes the effect of the
passage on voting all the more biased and manipulative. In context, the
paragraph regarding voting is completely unacceptable in a textbook.

To those who have difficulty finding bias in the discussion of voting on the
abortion issue, consider your reaction if the passage had been written with a
pro-life bias. Such a passage might read like this:

"Over the next several years you will be asked to vote for politicians
who will determine the protections we place on human life. You will help decide
whether or not a child loses the most fundamental of all rights - the right to
live - just because it has not yet left its mother's womb. Can we take away
life with impunity? Will we remove all protections for the weakest and most
helpless among us? Can we honestly say that an unborn child is not human? Can a
separate being with its own beating heart, its own brain, and its own active
brain waves be treated as merely a part of someone else's body? Who has the
right to take away a human life for the personal convenience of someone else?
This is the crux of a fierce ideological struggle in contemporary America." (my
text)

Even pro-life activists should be able to detect that the above passage was
written with extreme pro-life bias. If such a passage were in a sociology
textbook, would Appleton officials advocate use of the book because of its
diversity of views? Would we not be troubled that the text was manipulative and
too biased for use in public education, even though we might share that bias?
By the same token, I feel that the pro-abortion bias on page 159 of the
sociology text will be evident to all.

As a final note, page 405 asserts, without documentation, that a majority of
Catholics favor legal abortion. I find this hard to believe. There is no
discussion of the reasons offered by the Catholic Church for its pro-life stand.

I have already noted many examples of bias against conservative Christians. In
addition, conservatives in general are denigrated in the text. For example,
page 161 bemoans the present increasing influence of conservatives, saying that
the "general conservative trend in society [is] part of the backlash against
all the changes initiated in the 1960s." The use of the word "backlash" again
implies a reaction based on anxiety, anger, or fear. The changes initiated in
the 1960s are described as positive. These changes, including "liberal causes"
charged with "prophetic inspiration" (p. 408), comprise 1960s movements for
civil rights, justice, and equity (p. 408), the gay rights movement of the
1960s (pp. 159-163); secularization, which is unfairly defined as the shift
from "unquestioned faith" to "reason, science, and technology," (p. 400);
increasing equality for women (p. 407); increased reproductive choice (pp.
157-159); and "sexually liberating currents" (p. 159). Some negative events in
the 1960s are listed in passing on page 409 (notably assassinations and riots),
but these are isolated events rather than lasting "changes initiated in the
1960s" against which conservatives are prompted to "backlash."

On page 409, the conservative political groups (apparently segments of the
Republican party) that joined forces with conservative Christians are said to
be organizations "that had previously been considered 'too extremist' to have
much effect on public policy," but now, through "mailing lists, media know-how,
and funding sources," they - with their Christian counterparts - became "a
powerful force in electoral politics."

I have already pointed out the extreme anti-Christian bigotry in the passage on
secular humanism. That passage on page 400 contains further bias, not pointed
out above, in the definition of secular humanism, which is said to emphasize
"rationality, science, and personal effort rather than blind faith in
supernatural powers." Most religious people I know, and the denominations I am
most familiar with, disavow "blind faith" and encourage people to apply logic
and reason to develop an intelligent faith. The powers of the human mind
are viewed as a gift that must be developed and used as much as possible. The
text portrays rationality as the opposite of traditional religious faith, but
this is a biased opinion.

In two other instances on page 400 (a margin note and in the first paragraph),
"secularization" is defined as a shift from "unquestioned faith" to a focus in
"reason, science, and technology." This definition demonstrates bias on the
part of the authors. It is unfair to denigrate nonsecularists by calling their
approach one of "unquestioned faith" or "blind faith." The Christians I know
personally have typically questioned their faith at some time and have sought
to apply rational thought to their religion. Reason, science, and technology
are important to many Christians, including myself. Many churches teach that
all truth must be self-consistent, and that genuine religious truth and
scientific truth will be in harmony. Religious faith has inspired and motivated
many great scientists, including Newton and Pascal, and many modern scientists
(including scientists in this community) accept Christianity in some form.

What would be a fair definition of secularization? My college edition of
Webster's Dictionary defines "secularize" as "to deprive of any religious
character, influence, or significance; to convert to secularism." (Sounds
applicable to this textbook!) Secularism is:

"1. secular spirit, views, or the
like; especially a system of doctrines and practices that rejects any form of
religious faith and worship. 2 the belief that religion and ecclesiastical
affairs should not enter into the functions of the state, especially into
public education."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "secularize" as "to
cause to draw away from religious orientation, make worldly." The dictionary
definitions are much more objective than the textbook, for the latter imparts
biased judgments: one side is impugned with the phrase "unquestioned faith" in contrast to "reason."

Scientific arguments are commonly used by secularists to deny divine creation
or the existence of God, so it is appropriate to indicate that secularization
reflects an increased belief in science rather than God. It is also appropriate
to say that secularists see their viewpoint as one of rationality. However, it
is unfair to ignore the viewpoint of those with religious faith.

Proponents of the text have called attention to a neutral statement on page
400, that science is not necessarily in opposition to faith for there will
always be some issues which cannot be explained by science. However, that
statement is the beginning of a discussion which indicates that the need for
religion is steadily dwindling because of increasing technical mastery, and
that religion is not needed in modern society except perhaps in time of stress:

"Nonetheless, the areas of life in which technical mastery has replaced faith
are ever widening. The integrative functions of religion have been supplemented
by political and economic structures. Although religious observance may be
important for individuals in time of stress, most members of modern societies
base their personal decisions on a rational calculation of costs and benefits
rather than relying on commands of spiritual leaders.

"It is this modern way of thinking (the secular mind) that most
conflicts with religion."
(Sociology, p. 400)

Religious observance is described as a crutch for times stress. This shows remarkable ignorance of the role that religion plays in the daily lives of millions of people in "modern societies." With their manipulative wording, the authors devalue and marginalize sincere religious faith and imply that it is
out of place in the modern world. Religion is contrasted with "rational
calculation" - as if religion were irrational. Finally, with flagrant bigotry,
the authors state that those with religious faith rely "on commands of
spiritual leaders" rather than using their own reasoning - a statement which is
simply incorrect.

Perhaps I must explain some basic facts about religious belief to illustrate
the nature of bias in the textbook. The vast majority of Christians, Jews, and
Moslems that I know do not "rely on commands of spiritual leaders" without the
use of rational thought. Relatively few believers, in my experience, rely on
anything but their own rational thought in making decisions. In religions where
spiritual leaders offer anything close to "commands," their counsel may be
appreciated, perhaps even prized, but not accepted blindly. The spiritual
leaders in my particular denomination, for example, have explicitly warned
against such blind faith in humans, however inspired they may be. Their
suggestions, teachings, or instructions are to be weighed against scripture
and considered and interpreted with logical thought, as well as faith and
prayer. Christians generally are taught to ponder their decisions and to use
their minds and hearts in solving their own problems. Many Christian religions
emphasize the importance of human liberty and free agency - that we have the
freedom and the responsibility to choose our own course, though there are
consequences to the choices we make. Fortunately, we are not left in ignorance
but have been given divine resources such as scriptures and prayer to provide
guidance, and have access to the power of Christ to gain true freedom. But the
choice is ours, and rational thought must play a role. Indeed, many Christians
might say that their religious commitment is a result of "a rational
calculation of costs and benefits," with the benefits of Christianity (peace
and joy in this world - not just the next - and the hope of eternal life) far
outweighing the costs.

In contrast, many secular people rely on almost anything but "a rational
calculation of costs and benefits" in making decisions.

In context, I maintain that the sociology text belittles religious faith as
irrational. blind, and unquestioning, useful perhaps only in times of stress,
and at odds with the modern "secular mind" which is pictured as purely
rational. This treatment of religion is unfairly biased in favor of secularism.

Not surprisingly, the text on page 400 soon departs from the bias against
religious faith per se and narrows its focus to conservative Christians,
specifically, "the new prophets of Protestant revivalism, who have defined
'secular humanism' as the great enemy...." This more focused area of bias has
been treated above.

p. 165 "In addition, the limited data indicate that homosexual parents are as
successful as other parents in raising emotionally stable children...."

What limited data? No discussion is offered of the obvious problems that might
exist in such an arrangement, nor of the reasons for concern on the part of
conservatives. Throughout the lengthy section on homosexuality, the only
viewpoint presented is one which favors homosexuality.

p. 163:

"Some homosexual relationships may be judged healthier - or at least
less destructive - than some heterosexual marriages."<

"... the homosexual scene is probably no more violent or sexually exploitive
[sic] than the heterosexual world."

These are both opinions without factual basis. Only one side of a hotly debated
topic is presented.

Again, this paints the picture using terms chosen for the advantage of only
side. To label increasing sexual permissiveness as "liberating" successfully
conveys the opinions of the authors. There is no attempt to provide balance.

p. 157: Opponents of reproductive clinics in schools have had success in
limiting funding, "even though the data show that it is sexual ignorance and
not sex education that accounts for American teenagers' high level of sexual
activity and low level of contraception."

This irresponsible statement is offered without substantiation and, in fact, is
contradicted by extensive data. Sexual ignorance is not the cause of sexual
activity! Quite the opposite. This statement reveals the bias of the authors.

Finally, let me add one more point I have noted since my initial review. On
page 160, during the course of the lengthy and favorable treatment of
homosexuality, those who oppose homosexuality are said to suffer from
homophobia. Rather than make any attempt to provide diverse viewpoints or to
provide the viewpoints and motivations of Christian opponents of homosexuality,
those who oppose homosexuality are described as suffering from a phobia. This
provides only one viewpoint. The lack of balance - and the use of name calling
- again shows a serious level of bias in the sociology text. Where is
diversity, balance, and fairness? Only side of complex issues are shown.

This text is extremely biased and unfair in dealing with issues of religion,
party politics, and sexual morality. Christians (especially conservative
Christians) are denigrated, while modern witches are praised. Conservatives
are presented as fearful, prone to backlash against progress, while liberals
are highly praised. Youth are urged to support pro-abortion politicians.

Basic standards of fairness, intellectual honesty, and objectivity have been
sacrificed for the sake of advancing the authors' personal biases in areas of
party politics, sexuality, and religion. These divisive topics demand a
cautious and fair approach in public education, respecting the views of the
families in our community. Such an approach is absent in this textbook on
sociology. Therefore, I feel a more equitable and inclusive text should be
sought instead.

The text reviewed here (in much more brevity due to lack of time) is
William Haviland, Anthropology, 6th ed., Holt-Rhinehard-Winston,
1991.

This text contains anti-religious bigotry and factual errors which make it a
questionable choice for public schools. Perhaps anthropology textbooks are
equally or more deficient. If this text is adopted, teachers should at least be
sensitized to some of the problems to allow them to compensate or provide
balance.

Religion is a crucial component in the study of anthropology. It is one of the
great common denominators in the human experience, with an influence that is
pervasive throughout the planet and throughout history. In spite of the
overarching significance of religion in the study of human culture, the topic
seems to be ignored until near the end of the textbook, where it is introduced
in chapter 22, "Religion and Magic." After 21 chapters that largely ignore the
dominance of religion in shaping human culture and society, religion is now
introduced with an unmistakable negative bias. Through clearly incorrect and
grossly skewed definitions on page 563, it is described in the same terms as
primitive magic.

P. 563: Religion is defined: when people are unable to solve their problems
through knowledge and science, they "turn to the manipulation of
supernatural beings and powers."

"Religion consist of various rituals ... through which people try to
manipulate supernatural beings and powers to their advantage."

These definitions fail to adequate include many of the world's religions!
Opponents of Christianity may wish to slur that religion with such definitions,
but I feel most Christians would be offended to be told that they seek to
manipulate God. Indeed, Biblical teaching and a common Christian perspective is
that we must seek to do God's will rather than the other way around. Christians
want God to transform them into purer, more Christlike beings, to the glory of
God - which could be described as "manipulation of humans by a supernatural
power to His advantage." The teachings of several other major world religions
are consistent with this general idea - that religion is used to transform the
believers rather than to manipulate supernatural powers.

Other less biased texts describe religion as the belief systems that
acknowledge the supernatural, systems which make distinction between the sacred
and the profane, systems which teach reverence for powers or beings outside
the scope of worldly existence, or systems of belief which offer specific
precepts of a metaphysical nature. The Humanist Manifesto I, signed by
prominent intellectuals including educators such as John Dewey, defines
humanism as a religion, with a religious perspective focused on man rather than
God. The definitions given by Haviland not only show bias, they are factually
incorrect and fail to include many recognized religious systems. This is
inexcusable in a serious textbook.

Page 565 shows a bias against conservative Christians ("Jerry Falwell and
others") by referring to "Christian fundamentalism with its marked antiscience
bias." The general definition on page 563 also implies that science and
technology are at odds with religion. As a scientific researcher, I can say
that there are many scientists who are also devout Christians and who see no
conflict between scientific truth and religious truth.

Page 580 begins a major section entitled "Religion, Magic, and Witchcraft" -
continuing the association of religion with magic. The text makes some
distinction between religion and magic, but this hardly provides balance.
Religion is presented in much the same terms as primitive magic - manipulation
of supernatural powers.

Pages 428 to 429 argues that prohibitions on sex outside marriage are unusual -
claiming that less than 5% of the world follow such a system. This "fact" is
grossly incorrect. It is like saying that World War II ended in 1492. There are
strict sexual prohibitions taught (though not always followed!) among many of
the world's 1.7 billion Christians, one billion Chinese, and many other
peoples. Where does Havilland come up with the undocumented and ridiculously
low figure of 5%? This is misinformation.

Further bias is evident in his omissions. Nowhere does the author discuss any
basis for such prohibitions (or even the "excuses" offered for such
prohibitions) - a glaring oversight in a text attempting to discuss human
culture and society. Instead,, this section on marriage cites at length (over 1
full page) the case of the Nayar people of India, who are said to give their
young girls early for casual sex without obligations or commitments. This
favorable portrayal of what appears to be child abuse, coupled with the overall
tone of this section, teaches that early, casual sex is acceptable and free of
negative consequences. Advocates of the text point out that the author states
that Nayar practices are much different than what occurs in America. That is
obvious, but does not constitute a departure from the author's ideological
bias. In context (the 5% statement, the omission of other points of view, the
omission of commonly offered reasons for restriction on sexual activity, and
the incest section described below), the author is paints a positive picture of
sexual permissiveness and early sex, reflecting his personal biases, not
objective scholarship. His personal values will be offensive to many members of
our community and are inappropriate in a textbook for public school.

On page 430, incest is discussed as if it were not inherently unacceptable. It
is "a challenge to anthropologist to explain why incest should be commonly
regarded as such a loathsome thing." Then Haviland states that there is still
no truly convincing explanation for the incest taboo. The severe psychological
and physical consequences of incest are well known and heavily documented -
there is no excuse for the doubting stance displayed by the author.

The genetic risks alone provide a convincing reason against taboo, apart from
elementary moral concerns. The author does refer to the theory that the incest
taboo is due to the deleterious effects of inbreeding, but goes on to argue
against that possibility. The paragraph on page 430 begins:

"Early
studies of genetics thought that the incest taboo precluded the
deleterious effects of inbreeding. While this is so, it is also true that as
with domestic animals, inbreeding can cause desired characteristics as well as
deleterious ones. Furthermore..."

and more biological reasons for doubting the
validity of the incest taboo are given. The author follows this paragraph with
the statement that "A truly convincing explanation of the incest taboo has
still to be advanced." [my italics]

This kind of misinformation is inexcusable and unprofessional. Coupled with the
favorable discussion of very early sex with Nayar girls and the author's
misstatement that prohibitions against premarital sex are unusual, this section
shows that the textbook suffers not only from factual errors but from
disturbing personal biases.

Haviland is a well-known anthropologist, but his textbook reflects a personal
bias against religion and against the sexual mores taught by most organized
religions. Given the importance of religion to most members of our community,
this type of bias is not appropriate for the Appleton schools. It is one thing
to ignore religion, but to distort its nature by describing it as Haviland does
is unjustifiable. His irresponsible writing on the topic of sexual values
(questioning the incest taboo, claiming that prohibitions against nonmarital
sex are had among less than 5% of the earth, and citing a case of apparent
sexual abuse of children in favorable terms) reflects personal bias rather than
scholarship. Certainly more equitable textbooks are available.

Conclusion: It's surprising that such bias and error is being pushed upon students by publishers and by members of the educational system. Parents need to be aware. Objections must be documented and rational. With this approach, I hope my local School Board will recognize the inappropriate nature of the proposed textbooks - especially the sociology text, and find less bigoted materials.